Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council
In response to EFRA Committee’s inquiry into Dog Control and Welfare, I would make the following responses on behalf of Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council. I have answered the questions in the order raised:
1. Is there a need for a more fundamental overhaul of dog legislation, and its enforcement, including that relating to dog attacks on people, livestock and pets?
1.1 Yes, we need a single piece of legislation that combines all the best parts from current legislation, not just that in England & Wales, but also from Scotland and Northern Ireland. The recently amended Northern Ireland legislation would seem to be a good starting point, as would the Private Members Bill currently making its passage through Parliament.
1.2 Section 1 of the current Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (which details dangerous breeds) needs to be kept in place. The four breeds specified were put there for very good reasons and removal of them would be a retrograde step and not bring any benefits to the public at large.
1.3 The current DEFRA consultation exercise seeks views on whether owners of the Section 1 breeds should be able to voluntarily place their dogs on the Index of Exempted Dogs. This should be included in any new legislation, as it will encourage owners of such dogs to “declare” them and remove a burdensome procedure for the more responsible owners. Owners of such dogs that do not voluntarily place their dogs on the Register should still be to able to be dealt with via the current system.
1.4 Similarly, the Private Members Bill’s proposal for Dog Control Notices would provide a valuable additional tool in controlling dog behaviour. In Tonbridge & Malling Council we have had a number of recent cases where Dog Control Notices would’ve been served had they been available.
2. Is sufficient action being taken on pets raised as status dogs to ensure their welfare and reduce their impact on communities?
2.1 No comment.
3. Will compulsory microchipping of puppies improve dog welfare and help prevent dog attacks at an affordable cost to dog owners? Should a dog licensing scheme also be considered?
3.1 This will not help prevent attacks by dogs. What it will do is enable dogs to be more readily identified with a permanent method of identification and this is to be applauded.
3.2 Penalties should be available (including, but not exclusively, Fixed Penalty Notices) for owners not having such identification upon their dogs after a specified time. Stronger penalties should be available for dealing with owners who repeatedly contravene any such requirement.
3.3 Similarly it will not directly help to improve dog welfare. It may do this as a side-effect of compulsory microchipping of puppies. However, problems may be encountered in enforcing such legislation, especially at puppy-farms as these are by their very nature hard to detect. Tracing any un-chipped puppy back to its breeder will be difficult in such circumstances.
3.4 In addition to requiring compulsory microchipping, consideration needs to be given to a requirement for the owner of the dog to ensure that the record held is up-to-date and accurate, most notably for their contact information. Appropriate penalties need to be in place to ensure that this can be enforced.
3.5 A centrally held database for ALL microchips, together with a standard microchip that is universally readable will also dramatically aid in the identification of dogs and reunification with their owners if dogs are lost.
3.6 Assuming any dog Licensing Scheme will require dogs to be microchipped (as is the case in Northern Ireland); this will dramatically increase the ease with which non-microchipped dogs can be identified. However, the setup, control and administration of the scheme must be cost-neutral to the enforcing agency. Clear, concise guidance needs to be given to both the public and enforcing agencies.
3.7 This will obviously impact upon dog owners as they will have to pay for the Licence to keep it cost-neutral to the enforcing agency. This will particularly affect those with several dogs. The Northern Ireland scheme allows for a “block licence” to be obtained for owners of three or more dogs and this would seem a good idea to bring into any similar scheme in England & Wales.
3.8 Similarly, the Northern Ireland scheme contains a number of concessions for the elderly and persons on reduced income that will also be beneficial.
4. Should the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 be extended to include offences committed on private property?
4.1 Yes, there is a not inconsiderable amount of evidence that suggests a large number of dog attacks happen on such property. With current legislation this can be difficult to pursue. Any such inclusion needs to be made part of a wider overhaul of this legislation, rather than the piecemeal addition of such items to existing legislation. Exclusion should be made where dogs attack intruders to a property; intruders should not be seen to gain from their illegal actions.
5. Are DEFRA’s proposals for wider community and educational approaches to support responsible dog ownership sufficiently ambitious?
5.1 No comment.
6. Do local authorities, the police and animal welfare charities have the right roles in managing stray dogs under the current legislative regime?
6.1 Broadly, yes. Local Authorities (LA’s) now have sole responsibility for stray dogs, which is easier for the public to understand. However, one benefit of the dual role between the Police and LA’s that has now been lost was the availability of a reception point 24/7; namely a Police Station. Often LA’s reached agreements with their Police Stations regarding the receipt and kennelling of dogs that ensured that the Police were not overly burdened with stray dogs. There was some confusion connected with the differing boundaries of Police and LA’s, but this could be overcome with communication between the two bodies.
6.2 The re-introduction of the Police as purely a reception point out-of-office-hours would be a positive step for the public at large.
June 2012